Practical Issues in Large-Scale Computerized Adaptive Testing

Applied Measurement in Education

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 287-304

  Mills, Craig N ^a   Stocking, Martha L ^a  

^a EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0030501826     PISSN: 08957347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15324818ame0904_1     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Baker, F., & Al-Karni, A. (1991). A comparison of two procedures for computing IRT equating coefficients. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 147-162.
2. Divgi, D. R., & Stoloff, P. H. (1986). Effect of the medium of administration on ASVAB item response curves (Rep. No. CNA 86-24). Alexandria, VA: Center for Naval Analysis.
3. Eignor, D. R., Way, W. D., Stocking, M. L., & Steffen, M. (1993). Case studies in computer adaptive test design through simulation (Research Rep. No. 93-56). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
4. Folk, V. G., & Golub-Smith, M. (1996, April). Calibration of online pretest data using BILOG. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New York.
5. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
6. Lunz, M. E., & Bergstrom, B. A. (1991). Comparability of decisions for computer adaptive and written examinations. Journal of Allied Health, 20, 15-23.
7. Lunz, M. E., & Bergstrom, B. A. (1994). An empirical study of computerized adaptive test administrative conditions. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31, 251-263.
8. Lunz, M. E., Bergstrom, B. A., & Wright, B. D. (1992). The effect of review on student ability and test efficiency for computer adaptive tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 33-40.
9. Mazzeo, J., Druesne, B., Raffeld, P. C., Checketts, K. T., & Muhlstein, A. (1991). Comparability of computer and paper-and-pencil scores for two CLEP general examinations (College Board Rep. No. 91-5). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
10. McBride, J. R., & Martin, J. T. (1983). Reliability and validity of adaptive ability tests in a military setting. In D. J. Weiss (Ed.), New horizons in testing (pp. 223-236). New York: Academic.
11. O'Neill, K., Folk, V., & Li, M.-Y. (1993). Report on the pretest calibration study for the computer-based academic skills assessments of The Praxis Series: Professional assessments for beginning teachers™. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
12. Potenza, M. T. (1994). The exploration of an alternative method for scoring computer adaptive tests. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
13. Sands, W. A. (1985). An overview of the CAT-ASVAB program. In Proceedings of the 27th meeting of the Military Testing Association (pp. 19-22). San Diego, CA: Naval Personnel Research & Development Center.
14. Schaeffer, G., Steffen, M., & Golub-Smith, M. (1993). Introduction of a computer adaptive GRE General Test (Research Rep. No. 93-57). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
15. Stocking, M. L. (1987). Two simulated feasibility studies in computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 36, 263-277.
16. Stocking, M. L. (1988). Scale drift in online calibration (Research Rep. No. 88-28-ONR). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
17. Stocking, M. L. (1992). Controlling item exposure rates in a realistic adaptive testing paradigm (Research Rep. No. 93-2). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
18. Stocking, M. L. (1994). An alternative method for scoring adaptive tests (Research Rep. No. 94-48). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
19. Stocking, M. L., & Lewis, C. (1995a). Controlling item exposure conditional on ability in computerized adaptive tests (Research Rep. No. 95-24). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
20. Stocking, M. L., & Lewis, C. (1995b). A new method of controlling item exposure in computerized adaptive tests (Research Rep. No. 95-25). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
21. Stocking, M. L., & Lord, F. M. (1983). Developing a common metric in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 201-210.
22. Stocking, M. L., & Swanson, L. (1993). A method for severely constrained item selection in adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 277-292.
23. Swanson, L., & Stocking, M. L. (1993). A model and heuristic for solving very large item selection problems. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 151-166.
24. Sympson, J. B., & Hetter, R. D. (1985, October). Controlling item-exposure rates in computerized adaptive testing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Military Testing Association, San Diego, CA.
25. Wainer, H. (1992). Some practical considerations when converting a linearly administered test to an adaptive format (Research Rep. No. 92-13). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
26. Wainer, H., Dorans, N. J., Flaugher, R., Green, B. F., Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L., & Thissen, D. (1990). Computerized adaptive testing: A primer. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
27. Ward, W. C. (1988). The College Board Computerized Placement Tests: An application of computerized adaptive testing. Machine-Mediated Learning, 2, 217-282.